Glenn and TG, without going into a long dissertation I'll get right to the heart of my position. While our system of government with its Separtation of Powers does indeed combat and prevent tyranny as well as ensure that our rights remain intact, the inability of government to remove those rights without the overwhelming consent of the people ensures that our system of government with its Separation of Powers remains intact. I'll illustrate this with an example: Suppose the President wanted to use his position as Commander in Chief of the military to, against the will of the people, attempt to seize power from the other branches of the government by force and make himself a dictator. Obviously this would not work because it would be against the will of the people and the people would offer such strong resistance (including likely armed resistance) that such a scheme would be all but impossible (let's face it, neither the military nor police can control the people if the majority of them are armed and unwilling to comply). So, in order to make such a thing work, the President would first have strip the people of their rights (including RKBA) and thereby remove their ability to resist, but he cannot remove the people's rights against their will without first taking sole control of the government. So, the President cannot seize sole power without taking away the rights of the people first, and he cannot do that without sole power thusly making the attainment of sole governmental power by the President against the will of the people impossible. Therefore, both the Separation of Powers and our unalienable rights (including RKBA) prevent tyranny so long as the people have the will to be free from tyranny.